TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Copyediting tests for employment From:WandaJane Phillips <wandajp -at- ANDYNE -dot- ON -dot- CA> Date:Tue, 6 Dec 1994 21:45:22 GMT
In article <199412010513 -dot- VAA21915 -at- netcom15 -dot- netcom -dot- com>
"Katharine Y. Flight" <kflight -at- netcom -dot- com> writes:
> 2) If you have administered one of these tests, did you find them
> useful in screening candidates? Are there particular areas of
> subject matter or skills that you look for or consider most
> valuable? Do you use them routinely in hiring, or only for
> certain positions or assignments?
we experimented with a writing/editing test during our last search... I
designed the test in conjunction with HR and our best editor. I found
that the writing part went much better than the editing test. We asked
the candidates to write laundry instructions for a college student
leaving home for the first time.
with the editing test we gave them a clumsy draft, a copy of the
corporate standards (very slim) and asked them to edit according to our
standards. We had the editor whiz give us a benchmark time, and we
intended to compare the time results with the *hits*. It took
_everyone_ so long to read the standards that nobody did very well. We
decided that next time we will just ask them to proof a short text...
never mind the standards.
... waja ...
sitting quiet waiting on the muse, a muse?